Generally, activity venues make a profit by providing entertainment to a maximum number of patrons over a period of time. Typically, patrons can arrive at an activity venue and pay a fee to participate in an activity for a period of time or for a predetermined quantity of sub-activities. For example, golfers can reserve a scheduled tee time to play a round of golf at a golf course. Traditionally, tee times are assigned to patrons using a predicted offset of time to create an offset between golfing parties (e.g., 15 minute increments). Tee times can be assigned, by reservation or by walk-in, on a first come first served basis for time slots that are available at the time of reservation. Other activity venues schedule their activities for patrons based on similar scheduling systems or simply using a first come first served queue (e.g., at venues providing entertainment related to mini golf, skiing, amusement parks, etc.).
However, these methodologies experience some shortcomings. The use of scheduled predetermined time slots or first come first served type queues can make it difficult for operators to manage a flow of patrons at periods of high volume (e.g., summer months, weekends, Friday night, etc.) and make it difficult for patrons to accurately predict the amount of time it will take to complete their activities at the venue. In other words, traditional methodologies do not take into account current traffic flow of the patrons throughout the entire venue and do not compensate for bottlenecks causing extended wait times or gaps that could be filled by patrons that otherwise would be waiting to participate. For example, the first come first served model merely places patrons at an initial starting point (e.g., at the first hole of a golf course) upon their arrival at the activity venue, which can lead to backups and extended wait times while patrons wait for the group(s) in front of them to finish the current sub-activity (i.e., the first hole of a three, nine, or eighteen hole golf course). Similarly, predetermined time slots can cause unnecessary delays or large time gaps based on a time of day, week, or month. For example, time slots for early afternoon on a weekday may not be as convenient for patrons as the time slots for weekend afternoons, causing large swings in the number of people on a course at any one time. Additionally, these conventional methods lack the tools necessary to track data related to the traffic of patrons and to use the data to maximize the throughput of the patrons. Instead, any adjustments made by operators at an activity venue rely solely upon in-person observations of the activities and patrons, and making the adjustments according to such in-person observations. Likewise, the adjustments that can be done based on such in-person observations are insufficient to address the existing shortcomings of such methodologies.
Moreover, today's culture and lifestyles have changed, leaving less leisure time, which must be balanced against other priorities. Younger generations expect a lifestyle that is managed digitally in real-time. Accordingly, activity venues that are not optimized for efficiency to meet today's demands and/or are not able to offer expedited entertainment for patrons, can suffer financial losses. For example, in today's culture, golfers are finding it increasingly difficult to play golf because rounds could last over 4 hours 15 minutes, which is too much of a time commitment. Conventional golf courses lack a means to convey to golfers how long a round of golf will take for them to complete, making it difficult to schedule a round of golf in condensed schedules. Similarly, in addition to an expedited entertainment experience, patrons want more budget friendly options to fit their schedules. For example, a golfer may only have time to play golf for 90 minutes, which may only be enough to play 6 holes, but they do not want to have to pay for a full 9 or 18 holes (and it is unconventional to be able to pay for a number of holes at a full size golf course that is less than 9 holes). Problems similar to the above-noted issues can lead to patron frustration, hindering in the overall experience, a decrease in new players, and an overall decline in the number of participating patrons at the venue. Further, during extremely slow times, a golfer may want to play a particular hole multiple times to practice a skill required to effectively play a challenging part of the course, such as laying up in front of a hazard, clearing an obstacle, or finding the best approach to executing a curved fairway, typically referred to as a “dog leg”. This type of flexibility and individualized billing is impossible with current activity models.
Additionally, during periods of high volume of patrons, it is difficult for the staff to maintain the venue around patrons. Typically the staff is inefficient as they have to wait to perform maintenance tasks in between patron use. At large venues like golf courses, performing maintenance between patrons is extremely challenging because it is unclear where all of the patrons are at any given moment. Consequently, staff spend time waiting for patrons to complete sub-activities within the activity venue (such as a particular hole on a golf course). Likewise, patrons do not enjoy staff waiting for them to complete such sub-activities because it diminishes their experience. This also results in both time and cost inefficiencies.
Maintenance superintendents who manage staff at large venues also have difficulty doing so efficiently. They do not always know where the staff is physically located at the venue or the amount of time they spend in areas performing certain tasks. Superintendents also frequently do not know where each piece of equipment is at any moment and must coordinate equipment usage through inefficient methods. This yields inefficiencies for the venue in time and cost and ultimately the delivery of a consistent experience for patrons.